Nordic defence spending is rising rapidly, and simulation technologies are expanding across the region. Yet the architecture required to integrate these systems into coherent synthetic training ecosystems is still emerging.

Nordic Defence Spending Factbox

Nordic defence investment has accelerated rapidly since 2014:

• Nordic countries now spend tens of billions of dollars annually on defence, with Norway, Sweden and Denmark each spending roughly $14–16 billion per year.¹
• Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are now at or above NATO’s 2% defence spending benchmark.²
• Sweden’s defence budget is projected to reach 2.8% of GDP by 2026 and more than 3% by 2028, having doubled since 2020.³
• NATO allies have agreed to move toward a 5% defence investment benchmark, consisting of 3.5% core defence spending and 1.5% defence-related infrastructure and resilience investment.⁴
• Nordic states rank among the highest defence spenders per capita in NATO.²

Implication: Nordic armed forces are expanding rapidly — but training ecosystems are not keeping pace.

The uncomfortable truth: the Nordics are not short on simulation

Across the Nordic defence community, conversations about training technology often focus on familiar solutions.

“We need better simulators.”
“We need higher fidelity.”
“We need more capacity.”

Increasingly, this diagnosis misses the real issue.

Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, defence spending across NATO has increased dramatically. In 2014, only three NATO members met the Alliance’s 2% spending benchmark, while by 2024, more than half of NATO members had met or exceed it.⁵

Nordic governments have responded with extensive defence modernisation programmes across land, air and maritime domains. These include new fighter aircraft fleets, armoured vehicles, air-defence systems and naval capabilities. But expanding operational capability creates a secondary challenge:

Training systems must scale alongside operational capability.

That is where the gap begins to appear.

Nordic countries are investing heavily in simulation technologies. Yet the architecture required to integrate those systems into coherent synthetic training ecosystems is still evolving.

Put bluntly:

The Nordics are purchasing many training components — but have not yet built the system.

Major Nordic Simulation and Training Programmes

Across the Nordic region, defence organisations are actively modernising their training infrastructure. These programmes demonstrate that simulation capability is expanding rapidly. But at the same time, they highlight the central challenge of integration.

Norway – Future Army Combat Training System (P5066)

Norway is exploring a major modernisation of land training infrastructure through the Future Army Combat Training System (FACTS) programme, internally known as Project P5066.

The programme aims to support:

• brigade-level training
• combined arms integration
• live-virtual-constructive training
• advanced exercise control and evaluation

The Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA) has issued a Request for Information to industry exploring possible future solutions.⁶

Norway already operates one of Europe’s most sophisticated land training environments at the Combat Training Centre at Rena, which includes laser-based instrumentation capable of tracking large manoeuvre formations.⁷

The instrumentation system enables detailed exercise monitoring and after-action review through Saab’s GAMER combat training system, which tracks soldier and vehicle movements and simulates combat effects during exercises.⁸

At the same time, digital tools such as Exonaut are increasingly used to manage training planning, lessons learned and operational analysis.⁹

Together, these developments point toward a broader ambition: the creation of a national synthetic training architecture.

Enterprise Virtual Simulation – VBS4

Across NATO, one of the most significant developments in military training is the adoption of enterprise-scale virtual simulation environments.

A key example is Virtual Battlespace 4 (VBS4), a whole-earth virtual simulation platform used for mission rehearsal, tactical training and experimentation.¹⁰

VBS4 enables military organisations to train in complex simulated environments ranging from urban terrain to large-scale operational scenarios.

Such systems are increasingly used for:

• basic soldier and crew skills training
• distributed command training
• mission rehearsal
• operational experimentation

However, enterprise virtual environments represent only one component of a synthetic training ecosystem. The real challenge lies in integrating these platforms with live training environments and constructive simulations.

CV90 simulator infrastructure

The CV90 infantry fighting vehicle is widely used across Nordic mechanised forces, including in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

Investments in advanced simulation capability have accompanied the modernisation of these fleets.

Sweden’s Defence Materiel Administration has contracted new CV9040 simulators designed to support:

• driver training
• turret crew training
• networked collective training

These systems allow entire vehicle crews to train together in a simulated environment and can be linked with other platform simulators.¹¹

Such systems represent an important step toward collective synthetic training.

In addition, there is a joint multinational endeavour, with a strong Nordic & Baltic presence, to procure a common CV9035 platform fleet of vehicles for Norway, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania and the Netherlands.¹² Norway alone intends to buy 80 new CV90s as part of this procurement cooperation. For Norway at least, and most likely for all participants, training devices and simulators are an important part of this procurement.

Leopard 2A8 tank training systems

Nordic armies are also introducing modernised Leopard 2 main battle tanks, including the Leopard 2A8 variant.

Sweden has announced the acquisition of 44 Leopard 2A8 tanks,¹³ and Norway has purchased 54.¹⁴ For both countries, procurement includes advanced simulation systems to support crew training and tactical exercises.

These simulators include detailed gunnery training and can be integrated with other armoured simulators to support networked mechanised training environments.

Instrumented live training systems

Despite advances in virtual simulation, live training instrumentation remains central to Nordic training capability, as witnessed by the previously mentioned Norwegian FACTS procurement.

Systems such as Saab’s GAMER instrumentation track soldier and vehicle movements during exercises and simulate weapon effects.⁸

These systems provide valuable training data and support detailed after-action review. However, integrating live training instrumentation with virtual and constructive simulations remains a complex technical challenge.

Operational Examples: Where Synthetic Training Meets Reality

Large multinational exercises increasingly combine live training with elements of simulation and distributed command environments.

These exercises demonstrate both the potential and the limitations of integrating synthetic training.

Nordic Response / Cold Response

The Norwegian-led Nordic Response exercise — previously known as Cold Response — is one of NATO’s largest recurring exercises in the High North.

The 2024 exercise involved over 20,000 personnel from 13 nations across land, sea and air domains.¹⁵

Such exercises demonstrate impressive multinational operational integration. However, they also highlight a structural limitation: they remain episodic events rather than persistent training ecosystems.

Arctic Challenge Exercise

The Arctic Challenge Exercise is one of Europe’s largest air exercises, hosted jointly by Norway, Sweden and Finland.

The exercise typically involves over 100 aircraft from multiple NATO partners, focusing on high-end air combat training.¹⁶

These exercises increasingly rely on distributed planning tools and simulation environments. Yet integrating live aircraft training with synthetic environments remains technically complex.

Distributed command-post exercises

Constructive simulations are widely used for command-post exercises (CPX), where operational headquarters train decision-making in simulated environments.

Systems such as Joint Theatre Level Simulation-Global Operations (JTLS-GO) allow large operational scenarios to be modelled digitally.¹⁷

However, integrating these simulations with live manoeuvre training remains challenging.

LVC experimentation in Nordic land training

Research experiments have explored linking live manoeuvre training with virtual and constructive forces.

Such experiments demonstrate that Live-Virtual-Constructive integration can significantly expand training possibilities, allowing simulated UAVs, artillery or manoeuvre units to augment live exercises.¹⁸

The ongoing (as of early March 2026) Cold Response 2026¹⁹ exercise will be a live-constructive-integration exercise, with Brigade Finnmark participating via a distributed CPX. The brigade staff will be in their command post in Finnmark. At the same time, all forces are simulated and modelled in the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS),²⁰ which will stimulate the Norwegian C4IS system. This will be a first for the Norwegian Army, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.

However, such experimentation and exercises also highlight the complexity of creating reliable synthetic training architectures.

What a Synthetic Training Architecture Actually Looks Like

If the Nordic Synthetic Training Gap is not primarily about technology, then what exactly is missing?

The answer is architecture.

A synthetic training ecosystem is not simply a collection of simulators connected by networks. It is an operating architecture that allows training systems to function as a coherent capability across multiple domains, organisations and security boundaries.

In practice, such an architecture usually contains several distinct layers:

The execution layer consists of the training systems themselves: platform simulators, live instrumentation systems, virtual environments and constructive simulations. Nordic countries are already investing heavily in this layer.

The federation layer enables these systems to interact. It provides the technical interfaces, standards and networking infrastructure that allow different simulation systems to exchange data and operate within the same scenario.

The scenario and training design layer enables exercises and training events to be planned, configured and reused. This includes scenario management, training objectives and exercise control systems.

The data and analytics layer captures the outcomes of training activities and transforms them into measurable readiness insights. This includes instrumentation data, performance metrics and lessons-learned systems.

Finally, there is the governance layer, which defines how the entire system is managed. Governance includes configuration management, accreditation, security approval processes and operational ownership.

The key point is that a synthetic training ecosystem emerges only when all these layers operate together as part of a coherent system.

Most Nordic training environments currently possess elements of each layer. What remains underdeveloped is the architecture that integrates them into a persistent capability rather than a temporary exercise configuration.

Who Owns the Synthetic Training Ecosystem?

Even when the technical components of synthetic training are in place, another problem frequently arises: ownership.

Synthetic training ecosystems sit at the intersection of multiple organisational responsibilities.

The armed forces themselves typically own operational training. Defence materiel agencies manage the procurement of simulation systems. Separate information technology organisations often control network infrastructure and cybersecurity. Meanwhile, industry partners provide key simulation technologies and integration services.

In this environment, responsibility for the integrated training outcome can become fragmented.

When this happens, synthetic training systems tend to evolve through individual projects rather than through coherent architecture. New simulators are acquired, instrumentation systems are upgraded, and exercises incorporate new technologies — but the overall ecosystem remains loosely connected.

This pattern is not unique to the Nordic region. Across NATO, many modelling and simulation initiatives encounter similar organisational challenges.

The organisations that succeed in building effective synthetic training ecosystems usually share one characteristic: clear operational ownership.

An identified person must be responsible not only for the individual training systems, but for the complete and integrated training environment itself.

Such a responsibility includes:

• defining the architecture and the interoperability standards that are to be used
• managing the system configuration and the evolution of the system
• ensuring the proper security and accreditation demands across networks
• aligning the training systems with the operational readiness requirements

Without such ownership, integration becomes an ad-hoc activity carried out during exercises rather than a sustained capability.

In other words, the Nordic Synthetic Training Gap is not only a technological challenge.

It is also an organisational one.

Components vs Synthetic Training Ecosystems

The Synthetic Training Landscape in the Nordics

Synthetic training capability emerges from an ecosystem including defence agencies, research institutions, NATO organisations and industry. Across the Nordic region, this ecosystem is already extensive.

National defence organisations in the Nordics

Training and simulation capability is typically distributed across multiple institutions. Examples include:

Norway

• Norwegian Armed Forces²¹
• Norwegian Defence University College²²
• Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA)²³
• Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI)²⁴

Sweden

• Swedish Armed Forces²⁵
• Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV)²⁶
• Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)²⁷

Finland

• Finnish Defence Forces²⁸
• Finnish Defence Forces Logistics Command²⁹
• Finnish Defence Forces International Centre (FINCENT)³⁰

Such distributed responsibilities can complicate the creation of unified synthetic training architectures.

NATO organisations

Several NATO organisations influence the development of synthetic training. These include:

• NATO Allied Command Transformation³¹
• NATO Modelling and Simulation Centre of Excellence³²
• NATO Science and Technology Organisation (STO)³³
• NATO Modelling & Simulation Group³⁴

These organisations support the development of modelling and simulation standards and distributed training concepts.

Industry and technology providers

The Nordic synthetic training ecosystem also includes a significant industrial base.

Companies such as Saab develop training instrumentation systems used across NATO forces.⁸ Industry increasingly seeks to connect national simulators into distributed training environments capable of supporting multinational exercises.

What the ecosystem reveals

The Nordic synthetic training ecosystem already contains most of the components required for being an advanced training capability.

Across the region, we see:

• modern platform simulators
• sophisticated live training instrumentation
• enterprise-scale virtual simulation environments
• multinational exercises involving tens of thousands of personnel
• growing experimentation with Live-Virtual-Constructive integration

In other words, the building blocks already exist.

The challenge is not technology.

The challenge is integration, architecture and ownership.

Without a coherent training architecture, simulation systems risk remaining isolated capabilities rather than parts of an operational training ecosystem.

Without clear governance, integration will continue to occur primarily during large exercises rather than as part of a persistent training infrastructure.

This matters because modern military capability depends not only on platforms and weapons systems but on the ability to train effectively across domains, organisations and national boundaries.

The Nordic region is uniquely well-positioned to lead in this area. The countries involved share operational cultures, cooperate closely within NATO, and already conduct large multinational exercises.

But if defence capability is expanding rapidly — as current spending trends suggest — the architecture supporting training must evolve just as quickly.

Otherwise, the Nordics risk building increasingly advanced military capabilities without the integrated training ecosystems needed to exploit them fully.

Closing the Nordic Synthetic Training Gap will therefore require more than new simulators.

It will require building the system that connects them.

The Strategic Question

If the Nordic Synthetic Training Gap is real — and current developments strongly suggest that it is — then the most important question is no longer technological.

It is strategic.

Who will take responsibility for building and operating the synthetic training ecosystem that Nordic defence increasingly requires?

Will it emerge gradually through individual procurement programmes and exercises?

Or will the Nordic defence community deliberately design a coherent architecture capable of supporting multinational training, experimentation and readiness assessment across the region?

The answer to that question will likely determine whether the Nordics merely acquire advanced military platforms — or develop the integrated training capability required to employ them effectively.

Footnotes (click to expand)

1. NATO, Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries Reports (2014–2025). Source
2. Nordic defence spending comparisons across NATO datasets. Source
3. Government Offices of Sweden, Defence Budget Projections. Source
4. NATO, NATO Summit discussions on defence investment benchmarks. Source
5. NATO, NATO Secretary General statements on defence spending growth since 2014. Source
6. Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency, Request for Information: Future Army Combat Training System (FACTS). Source
7. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment publications on Combat Training Centre instrumentation. Source
8. Saab AB, Combat Training System (GAMER) programme documentation. Source
9. Exonaut Training Management System documentation. Source
10. Virtual Battlespace 4 (VBS4) platform documentation. Source
11. Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, CV90 simulator procurement announcements. Source
12. Joint Nordic-Baltic procurement of CV90. Source
13. Swedish Armed Forces equipment acquisition announcements regarding Leopard 2A8. Source
14. Norway buys 54 Leopard 2A8 tanks. Source
15. Norwegian Armed Forces, Nordic Response exercise information. Source
16. Arctic Challenge Exercise official information. Source
17. Joint Theater Level Simulation – Global Operations. Source
18. NATO modelling and simulation research on Live-Virtual-Constructive training. Source
19. Cold Response 2026. Source
20. Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation. Source
21. Norwegian Armed Forces. Source
22. Norwegian Defence University College. Source
23. Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA). Source
24. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. Source
25. Swedish Armed Forces. Source
26. Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV). Source
27. Swedish Defence Research Agency. Source
28. Finnish Defence Forces. Source
29. Finnish Defence Forces Logistics Command. Source
30. Finnish Defence Forces International Centre (FINCENT). Source
31. NATO Allied Command Transformation. Source
32. NATO Modelling and Simulation Centre of Excellence. Source
33. NATO Science and Technology Organisation. Source
34. NATO Modelling & Simulation Group. Source